> 'description' => 'The realm in which the user must possess the grant ID. Each node access node can define one or more realms.',
Surely this should say 'each node access *module'?
Compare with the docs in node.api.php:
* A node access module may implement as many realms as necessary to properly
* define the access privileges for the nodes. Note that the system makes no
* distinction between published and unpublished nodes. It is the module's
* responsibility to provide appropriate realms to limit access to unpublished
* content.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #23 | interdiff.txt | 2.05 KB | ada hernandez |
| #23 | error_in_schema_field-2863727-23.patch | 1.26 KB | ada hernandez |
| #13 | interdiff-2863727-10-13.txt | 615 bytes | faline |
| #13 | documentation-error-in-schema-field-description-2863727-13.patch | 665 bytes | faline |
| #10 | interdiff_2863727_3-10.txt | 659 bytes | jacobsanford |
Comments
Comment #2
abarrioI'm going to change it.
Comment #3
abarrioI have changed description to: "The realm in which the user must possess the grant ID. Each node access from module can define one or more realms."
Comment #4
renatog commentedHi guys, how are you?
Thank you very much @abarrio.
Works Good.
+RTBC
Good Work and Good Week.
Regards
Comment #5
renatog commentedComment #6
renatog commentedComment #7
alexpottI think this should be
Node access modules can define one or more realms.Note this text is exactly the same in Drupal 7 and Drupal 6...
Comment #8
alexpottIn fact it's probably better to have something like:
Modules can define one or more realms in hook_node_grants().otherwise someone has to work out what a node access module is.Comment #9
joachim commented+1 to wording in #8.
Comment #10
jacobsanfordEnclosed is a patch changing the wording as outlined in #8.
Comment #11
valthebaldWouldn't it be more clear to say
"Modules can define one or more realms by implementing hook_node_grants()."?
Or it's already clear enough?
Comment #12
jacobsanford@valthebald IMHO #11 is certainly an improvement
Comment #13
faline commentedChange the text to the suggestion on the #11
Comment #14
joachim commentedThis looks good to go!
Comment #15
renatog commentedLooks good for me.
Thanks people.
+RTBC
Comment #16
abarrioIt is better explained than other patchs for me.
Thanks @faline!!
Comment #17
alexpottI've updated the issue credit. I credited myself and @valthebald for making suggestions that altered the final patch. I credited @joachim for discovering and creating the issue. @RenatoG thank you reviewing the patch. Providing a screenshot of the wording was not necessary to review the issue. The actual wording was what needed review.
I think we should add an update function to update the table comment on existing sites too. Given the fact that this description is not API I don;'t think we need an update path test BUT it is important that people can compare the actual schema to a module's computed schema and this patch breaks that at the moment.
Comment #18
c.nish2k3 commentedPatch with update function.
Comment #19
th_tushar commentedAdded the proper comments to functions.
Comment #21
alexpottThanks for working on the update function.
@th_tushar that change is not in scope for this patch. See https://www.drupal.org/core/scope for guidelines and examples for Drupal core issue scope.
And not only is this not in scope it is actually wrong because the update system uses the first line of the method documentation to tell a user what updates are being done.
As the is used to tell users what's happening we should probably not include {node_access} like this.
How about
Fix realm column description on the node_access tableInstead of settings the entire schema here we should get the current schema for the column and just update the description. This means that if anyone has done anything interesting we won't unnecessarily break stuff. You'll need to use
drupal_get_module_schema('node', 'node_access');to get the current schema.Missing new line at end of file.
Comment #22
ada hernandez commentedworking on that
Comment #23
ada hernandez commentedchanging the last patch according #21
Comment #24
ada hernandez commentedComment #25
c.nish2k3 commentedTested the patch and looks good. Marking this as RTBC.
Comment #27
imadalin commentedComment #28
alexpottCommitted 1058cb9 and pushed to 8.4.x. Thanks!
@th_tushar thank you for submitting a patch I explained in #21.1 the changes you made were out-of-scope and incorrect. If you had instead reviewed the worked of @c.nish2k3 in #18 and asked whether or not this was necessary and confirmed the patch worked and reviewed the docs it was adding you would be credited on this issue.
#17 explains other crediting decisions.
I've tested the update function myself - work great.